DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of COLUMBIA JANE DOE I, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Her Son JOHN DOE I, JO

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of COLUMBIA JANE DOE I, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Her Son JOHN DOE I, JO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JANE DOE I, individually and on behalf of the estate of her son JOHN DOE I, JOHN DOE II, and JOHN DOE III, individually and on behalf of his father JOHN DOE IV and the estate of his brother JOHN DOE V, Plaintiffs, vs. MAJOR GENERAL JOHNY LUMINTANG, Defendant. Civil Case No.: COMPLAINT FOR SUMMARY EXECUTION, TORTURE, CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, WRONGFUL DEATH, ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JURY TRIAL DEMAND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Plaintiffs Jane Doe (individually and on behalf of the estate of her son John Doe I), John Doe II and John Doe III (individually and on behalf of John Doe IV and the estate of John Doe V) bring this action for compensatory and punitive damages against Major General Johny Lumintang, an Indonesian military officer currently in the United States who -- in the position of Vice Chief of Staff of the Indonesian military and as a member of the Indonesian High Command -- designed, ordered, implemented and directed a program of systematic human rights violations in East Timor which resulted in abuses including the summary execution of Jane Doe's son, John Doe I, the torture and summary execution of Plaintiff John Doe III's brother and attempted summary execution of his father, and the beating and shooting of John Doe II. 2. Plaintiffs seek damages for summary execution; torture; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; crimes against humanity; and other violations of customary international law, the laws of the United States, the laws of the District of Columbia, and the laws of East Timor. 3. Defendant Lumintang, acting singly and in concert with other members of the Indonesian High Command as well as other organized armed groups, directed, planned, instigated, conspired, aided, abetted, incited and failed to prevent and/or is otherwise responsible for the campaign of crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights law set forth in this complaint, including the September 1999 summary execution, torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and displacement of the Plaintiffs and/or their family members in East Timor. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This court has jurisdiction under the Torture Victim Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 102-256, 106 Stat. 78 (1992); the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and the principles of supplemental jurisdiction. The Torture Victim Protection Act provides federal jurisdiction for acts of torture and summary execution, no matter where committed. The Alien Tort Claims Act provides federal jurisdiction for "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Plaintiffs' causes of action arise under, among others, the following laws, agreements, resolutions and treaties: a. Customary international law; b. United Nations Charter, 59 Stat. 1031, 3 Bevans 1153 (1945); c. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A(iii), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948); d. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2220A(xxi), 21 U.N. Doc., GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966); e. Convention Against Torture; f. Common law of the United States of America; g. Laws of the District of Columbia, including but not limited to common law principles of wrongful death, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and h. Laws of East Timor. 5. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia is the proper venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. PARTIES 6. Plaintiff Jane Doe I and her deceased son John Doe I are citizens of East Timor, but were recognized as citizens of Indonesia until mid-October 1999. Both Jane Doe I and John Doe I were activists who supported independence for East Timor. On September 6, 1999, John Doe I was shot in the family home; he died in the hospital four days later. Prior to his killing, militia members had come to the family home and threatened to "clean up" the supporters of independence. 7. Plaintiff John Doe II is a citizen of East Timor, but was recognized as a citizen of Indonesia until mid-October 1999. In September 1999, he was stopped in Dili, East Timor, by Indonesian soldiers in uniform who interrogated him, beat him with rifle butts and kicked him until he fell to the ground. As he attempted to flee, a soldier shot him, injuring him in the foot. The lack of available medical attention caused the wound to become infected and the foot subsequently had to be amputated. 8. Plaintiffs John Doe III, John Doe IV and John Doe V are citizens of East Timor, but were recognized as citizens of Indonesia until mid-October 1999. They are all political activists who worked for the independence of East Timor. Beginning in February 1999, family members were beaten and tortured and otherwise threatened. In July 1999, death threats against the family were intensified, and militia members repeatedly came to the family home at night. Soon family members went into hiding. In September 1999 Plaintiff John Doe V was killed in his hiding place, and there was an attempt to kill John Doe IV. John Doe IV is unable to sue on his own behalf or on behalf of his deceased son John Doe V, and John Doe III files on their behalf. 9. Defendant Johny Lumintang is a citizen of Indonesia. During the time period relevant to this complaint, Defendant Lumintang was the Vice Chief of Staff of the Indonesian military, with command responsibility for troops located in East Timor. In that capacity, he was personally involved in the Indonesian military's ongoing program of massive human rights abuses in East Timor, which included the torture of John Doe II, John Doe IV and John Doe V, the summary executions of John Doe I and John Doe V, and the attempted summary execution of John Doe IV. Defendant Lumintang is currently travelling within the jurisdiction of this court. STATEMENT OF FACTS 10. East Timor, a colony of Portugal from the year 1702 until 1975, declared independence on November 28, 1975. Indonesia invaded just 10 days later, on December 7, 1975, and unilaterally annexed East Timor the following year. The United Nations never recognized Indonesia's annexation, regarding East Timor as a "non-self- governing territory" under the administration of Portugal. 11. In order to maintain control over the occupied territory during the past twenty-five years, Indonesian military forces detained, tortured, executed and "disappeared" tens of thousands of East Timorese. Suspected opponents of Indonesian rule were sentenced to lengthy prison terms for political offenses. Forced relocations of the rural population led to tens of thousands of deaths due to starvation and disease. Social, political or religious activities in East Timor which challenged the illegal Indonesian rule were ruthlessly repressed. 12. These gross and systematic violations of human rights resulted in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 people in East Timor since 1975, out of a pre-invasion population of 600,000. 13. On January 27, 1999, Indonesian President B.J. Habibie announced that the people of East Timor would be given a choice between greater autonomy within or total separation from Indonesia in a vote conducted by the United Nations. 14. From February through April 1999, the Indonesian military and its militia escalated a campaign of intimidation against the population of East Timor, driving tens of thousands of people from their villages, assaulting pro-independence activists and conducting several massacres. 15. During 1999, Defendant Lumintang served as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Indonesian military, with responsibility for training and deployment of Indonesian army troops in East Timor. In this position, Defendant Lumintang engaged in a series of actions to implement the Indonesian military's program of eliminating all social, political or religious activities in East Timor which in any way challenged the illegal Indonesian rule, particularly in the months leading up to the August 30, 1999 "popular consultation" on East Timor's independence. 16. On May 5, 1999, Indonesia, Portugal and the U.N. signed an agreement in New York describing procedures and a timetable for a "popular consultation" on East Timor's political status. The agreement left Indonesia responsible for security before and during the vote. The Indonesian military then acted to strengthen, expand and better coordinate the paramilitary militia groups. 17. Hours before the signing of the May 5 Accord, Defendant Lumintang sent a telegram (on behalf of General Subagyo, then Chief of Staff) to Regional Military commander Major General Adam Damiri and East Timor commander Colonel Tono Suratman, with orders to be prepared to take repressive actions after the ballot if the decision was in favor of independence. 18. In his position of Vice Chief of Staff in June 1999, Defendant Lumintang signed a Covert Operations Manual for Kopassus (Buku Petunjuk Pembinaan tentang Sandhi Yudha TNI-AD) which he described (in a foreward to the manual) as a guideline for education of Indonesian troops. The manual states that Kopassus intelligence troops were to be trained in propaganda, kidnapping, terror, agitation, sabotage, infiltration, undercover operations, wiretapping, photographic intelligence and psychological operations. Kopassus operatives have been linked to the surveillance, kidnapping, torture and extrajudicial killing of East Timorese independence activists both prior and subsequent to the independence "popular consultation". 19. In his position as Vice Chief of Staff, the Defendant and other members of the Indonesian High Command laid plans to withdraw Indonesian troops and forcibly relocate hundreds of thousands of East Timorese after the "popular consultation", in violation of the U.N.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Principles Against Executions
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 1990 Principles against Executions David Weissbrodt University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Terri Rosen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation David Weissbrodt and Terri Rosen, Principles against Executions, 13 HAMLINE L. REV. 579 (1990), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/364. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRINCIPLES AGAINST EXECUTIONSt Professor David Weissbrodt* Terri Rosen** I. INTRODUCTION The right to be free from extra-legal, arbitrary, or summary ex- ecutions is recognized in a number of international human rights in- struments. Such killings violate article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,' which provides that "every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."2 Although international organizations have developed procedures and remedies in response to extra-legal, arbitrary, and summary killings,' executions continue to occur in many countries. These killings include: (1) political assassina- tions; (2) deaths resulting from torture or ill-treatment in prison or de- t An abbreviated version of this article was published in Amnesty International-USA Legal Support Network Newsletter, Vol. 5, No. 3, Fall/Winter 1988. * Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law, University of Minnesota School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a Prisoner of War For?
    19 WHAT IS A PRISONER OF WAR FOR? Professor John Hickman Associate Professor of Government, Berry College Abstract This article presents a conceptual map of the purposes served by continuing custody of prisoners of war and captured non-combatants. Morally legitimate and non-controversial purposes include preventing prisoners of war from rejoining their comrades-in-arms, preventing both prisoners of war and captured non-combatants from giving material support to combatants still in the field, facilitating orderly release and repatriation at the end of hostilities, and the prosecution for war crimes. Morally illegitimate purposes include punishment, exploitation as conscript labour, recruitment or conscription as combatants, exploitation for intelligence, display as proof of victory, and ideological indoctrination. Analysis of historical cases illustrating each purpose reveal that continuing custody is often motivated by multiple purposes, both legitimate and illegitimate. What explains adoption of multiple and illegitimate purposes for continuing custody? Prisoners are available for legitimate and illegitimate purposes because neither elites nor masses within the captor state typically view prisoners as members of the moral community.1 Continuing custody does not alter the perceived status of the captured as aliens who cannot be intuitively invested with expectations of reciprocity. This suggests both ending custody as soon as legitimate purposes are served and bringing the captured within the moral community while in continuing captivity. Introduction Throughout human history, those captured in war have presented their captors with the basic choice between immediate execution, immediate release, or continuing custody – holding them in custody pending their release or other 1 The moral community comprises those persons to whom moral obligations are owed because moral values are shared.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex1 the UN Manual.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ..... ··,m .. "' f33(P13 United Nations Office at Vienna Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs MANUAL QrN THE EFFECTIVE PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION OF EXTRA-LEGAL,- ARBITRARY AND SUMMARY EXECUTIONS 133673 U.s. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from Ihe person or organization originating It. Points of view or opinions stated In this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or pOlicies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by United Nations to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. ~ft.~ ~ ~ 3 ~ United Nations New York, 1991 Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters com­ bined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations 1ocument. Material in this pUblication may be freely quoted. or reprinted, but acknowledgement is requested, together with a copy of the publication contain­ ing the quotation or reprint. ST/CSDHA/12 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No.: E.91.IV.1 ISBN 92+130142-4 01500P - 1 - CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 Chapter I. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS •••••••••••••• ,........... 4 A. United' Nations............................................ 4 1. General Assembly .••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 4 2. Economic and Social Council........................... 6 3. Commission on Human Rights •.•••••••.•••••••••••••••••• 6 4. Human Rights Committee................................ 9 5. Committee against Torture ••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••• 9 6. Committee on Crime Prevention and Control ••••••••••••• 10 7.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Military Tribunals: an Overview and Assessment
    Ouachita Baptist University Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita Honors Theses Carl Goodson Honors Program 2001 The International Military Tribunals: An Overview and Assessment Joshua Daniel Franklin Ouachita Baptist University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/honors_theses Part of the Military History Commons Recommended Citation Franklin, Joshua Daniel, "The International Military Tribunals: An Overview and Assessment" (2001). Honors Theses. 108. https://scholarlycommons.obu.edu/honors_theses/108 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Carl Goodson Honors Program at Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons @ Ouachita. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Contents Background 2 Prosecuted German Atrocities 4 Prosecuted Japanese Atrocities 5 Development of the Trial Plan . 7 The International Conference on \1ilitary Trials 10 The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 13 The Court and Defendants . 14 Proceedings 16 Judgment . 20 The International Military Tribunal for the Far East 21 The Court and Defendants . 24 Proceedings 28 Judgment 30 Assessment 31 Comparing the International Military Tribunals 32 Similarities 33 Differences . 35 Post-Trial Variances 40 Conclusion 41 Bibliography 45 As World \Var II drew to a close in Europe, the victorious Allies faced the question of v,:hat to do with the political and military leaders of defeated Germany. The war had been like none other; they needed a drastically new approach to the final treatment of those in charge of the Axis powers. \t\Thile war crimes could be punished under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, no international agreements assigned personal responsibility to those who ordered the crimes.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet No.11 (Rev.1), Extrajudicial, Summary Or Arbitrary Executions
    Fact Sheet No.11 (Rev.1), Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) (Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law.) "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) Contents: o Introduction o The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions o Reports of the Special Rapporteur o Situations upon which the Special Rapporteur takes action o Rights of victims o Some findings of the Special Rapporteurs o How to bring information or appeals to the attention of the Special Rapporteur o Annex: - List of questions to which Governments are requested to reply in regard to alleged cases of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Introduction It is recognized that the right to life is the most fundamental and basic of human rights. Indeed, the right to life is the fountain from which all the other human rights spring and it therefore deserves the greatest respect. With the end of the world wars and the beginning of the process of decolonization, the international community laid the foundation for the promotion and protection of human rights by proclaiming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Recognizing the "inherent dignity" and the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family", the General Assembly of the United Nations enshrined the right to life in article 3 of the Universal Declaration, which states that "everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person".
    [Show full text]
  • Arresting Insurgencytheory and Practice by K Y L E B
    U.S. Soldiers discuss tactics during counterinsurgency raids in Husiniyah Under the best circumstances, the police action [arrests] cannot fail to have negative aspects for both the population and the counterinsurgent living with it. These reasons demand the operation be conducted by professionals. —David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: 1 Arresting InsurgencyTheory and Practice By K Y L E B. T E A M E Y Fleet Combat Camera Group, Pacific (Michael Larson) Fleet Combat Camera Group, ne of the primary goals of the with difficult security situations, authorities will Arrests of innocent personnel may occur counterinsurgent is to reestablish often feel a strong impetus to use illiberal arrest for a number of reasons, including: security and rule of law. An and internment techniques or to ignore political O effective arrest and intern- or cultural expectations. Security forces and n inaccurate or poorly developed ment system is an essential part of a successful governments often make mistakes in the use of intelligence counterinsurgency effort, providing a nonlethal arrests and internment. Historically, there are n inability of troops to communicate effec- means of separating insurgents from the general five common errors: arresting innocent individ- tively with locals populace and thereby securing the populace. uals, releasing insurgents who are still a danger n innocent personnel arrested as witnesses The capture of insurgents and their equipment to the counterinsurgency effort, mistreating or for questioning provides valuable intelligence to counterinsur- arrested individuals, failing to anticipate the n arbitrary arrests or “fishing expeditions” gents and allows the option of rehabilitating effects of arrests and internment on the informa- used to try to identify insurgents insurgents and later releasing them back into tion campaign, and allowing prisons to serve as n collective punishment of a community.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Rights of Sea Pirates: Will the European Court of Human Rights Decisions Get More Killed?
    Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 15 Issue 2 2016 The Human Rights of Sea Pirates: Will the European Court of Human Rights Decisions Get More Killed? Barry Hart Dubner Barry University Brian Otero Barry University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Admiralty Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Barry Hart Dubner and Brian Otero, The Human Rights of Sea Pirates: Will the European Court of Human Rights Decisions Get More Killed?, 15 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 215 (2016), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol15/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Global Studies Law Review VOLUME 15 NUMBER 2 2016 THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF SEA PIRATES: WILL THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECISIONS GET MORE KILLED? BARRY HART DUBNER BRIAN OTERO I. INTRODUCTION The tide of piracy off the coast of Somalia has ebbed according to recent statistics.1 Perhaps it is just in time. Three decisions involving pirates, who were found to be deprived of their human rights by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Mauritius and a Danish law, are rather troubling in at least two different ways: (1) These decisions set pirates free after they were brought to justice; and (2), which is more problematic, pirates may now be subject to summary execution because of frustrated governments and innocent seafarers.
    [Show full text]
  • Targeted Killings**
    United Nations A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 General Assembly Distr.: General 28 May 2010 English only Human Rights Council Fourteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston* Addendum Study on targeted killings** Summary In recent years, a few States have adopted policies that permit the use of targeted killings, including in the territories of other States. Such policies are often justified as a necessary and legitimate response to “terrorism” and “asymmetric warfare”, but have had the very problematic effect of blurring and expanding the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks. This report describes the new targeted killing policies and addresses the main legal issues that have arisen. * Late submission. ** Owing to time constraints, the present report is circulated as received, in the language of submission only. GE.10-13753 A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 Contents Paragraphs Page I. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1–6 3 II. Background............................................................................................................ 7–27 4 A. Definition of “targeted killing” ..................................................................... 7–10 4 B. New targeted killing policies .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abuses in Counterinsurgency
    January 2008 country summary Chad Chad plunged into civil war shortly after it gained independence from France in 1960 and has been intermittently wracked by conflict ever since. The current round of internal conflict is in its third year and is complicated by the war in the neighboring Darfur region of Sudan. Khartoum increased its support to Chadian rebel groups based in Darfur in retaliation for Ndjamena’s support to Sudanese rebels with bases in Chad. In late 2006 rebel offensives launched from Darfur nearly toppled the government of President Idris Déby, but by early 2007 Chad’s security forces had managed to consolidate control over the volatile border zone. The Chadian government signed a peace accord with one of the most powerful rebel factions in December 2006 and agreed to preliminary peace terms with the four largest remaining factions in October 2007. However, the outlook for a sustained cessation of hostilities remains dim, with hundreds of combatants reported killed in renewed hostilities in late November. The government of President Idriss Déby has failed to protect its citizens from armed violence and has been responsible for direct attacks against civilians suspected of complicity with rebel groups seeking Déby’s overthrow. Militia attacks against Chadian civilians living along the border with Sudan reduced in number in 2007, but killings and other human rights violations continued to be reported. Abuses in Counterinsurgency The Chadian government has been responsible for human rights abuses against both combatants and non-combatants during military operations against Darfur- based rebel groups. In northern and northeastern Chad insurgents wounded or captured during a rebel offensive in late 2006 were subject to summary execution and torture at the hands of Chadian government soldiers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of Nuremberg Henry T
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 34 | Issue 3 2002 The Legacy of Nuremberg Henry T. King Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Henry T. King Jr., The Legacy of Nuremberg, 34 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 335 (2002) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol34/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE LEGACY OF NUREMBERG Henry T. King, Jr. INTRODUCTION As dawn broke over the Nuremberg courthouse on November 21, 1945, the world little knew the significance of what was to occur that day. For it was on that day in Nuremberg that Justice Robert H. Jackson, speaking for the prosecution, would launch the first international trial of major war criminals in human history. For thousands of years up until that date, those who committed war crimes of the nature described at Nuremberg had largely gone unpunished. Now, at Nuremberg, civilization was coming to grips with the need to punish those who committed these crimes. As Jackson said in his ever-memorable opening address, "the real complaining party in this trial is civilization."1 The method used at Nuremberg, a fair trial, was unparalleled in human history and unique in its approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Piracy and Due Process
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Michigan School of Law Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 39 Issue 3 2018 Piracy and Due Process Andrew Kent Fordham Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, National Security Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Kent, Piracy and Due Process, 39 MICH. J. INT'L L. 385 (2018). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol39/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PIRACY AND DUE PROCESS Andrew Kent* Introduction A skiff piloted across the Indian Ocean at night by Somalia pirates mis- takenly attacked a U.S. naval vessel, and the hapless pirates were soon in U.S. government custody.1 Did the Constitution require that they receive Miranda warnings before being questioned, or other protections that imple- ment constitutional due process? Or are constitutional protections inapplica- ble for some reason—because of the context, territorial location, or non- U.S. citizenship? Questions like this arise frequently. In addition to international piracy prosecutions, recent cases include Due Process and Fourth Amendment claims by the parents of a Mexican teenager killed in Mexico by a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Wartime Atrocities and the Politics of Treason in the Ruins of the Japanese Empire, 1937-1953
    Wartime Atrocities and the Politics of Treason in the Ruins of the Japanese Empire, 1937-1953 The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Lawson, Konrad. 2012. Wartime Atrocities and the Politics of Treason in the Ruins of the Japanese Empire, 1937-1953. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9795484 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA © 2012 – Konrad Mitchell Lawson Some Rights Reserved This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ iii Dissertation Advisor: Professor Andrew Gordon Konrad Mitchell Lawson Wartime Atrocities and the Politics of Treason in the Ruins of the Japanese Empire, 1937-1953 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the relationship between violence and betrayal in retribution against military and police collaborators who helped maintain Japan’s wartime occupations up until its defeat in 1945. Looking at the approaches taken in the colonies of British Asia, postwar treason trials in the Philippines, and Chinese Communist approaches in wartime and postwar Shandong province, this study argues that the laws and rhetoric of treason were deeply flawed tools for confronting the atrocities of war. At the very moment that war crimes trials were defining a set of acts that constituted crimes against all humanity, around the world thousands of individuals who helped perpetrate them were treated as primarily guilty of crimes against the nation.
    [Show full text]